You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum. This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.

The only part I guess I am failing to grasp is how you could possibly think what you just wrote and in the next breath say the wide nine is to blame. I honestly can't imagine what would make you insist that it was the formation itsself. Do you think that it was used too much? Did the team continue to use it even after opponents began to key on its weaknesses? How could either of those possibly be anything but coaching issues?

The formation cannot force the coaches to adjust or not. It's the coaches descision. It cannot force the coaches to practice a certain way. It's the coaches descision. If you believe that [some] coaches were devoted to it to the point of blindness, that's still a coaching issue. There is no possible way that anything pertaining to the way the Eagles used the wide 9 comes back to anything but the coaches decisions. Ergo, making it a coaching issue no matter how you slice it.

So I guess the Lions don't have the right coaching then either.

Before the Wide-9 was even implemented we didn't have close to the personnel ready on defense, our LBs were soft and didn't play downhill, we were weak up front at the DT position and we had/still have safeties that can't tackle. Everyone in the off-season proclaimed if we upgraded our LBs we would be fine. I didn't buy it. Surely, enough this year we are getting run on just as bad if not worse and we have now ridden ourselves of this scheme.

Despite drafting "his guy" Fletcher Cox, Jim Washburn couldn't find a force in the middle to consistently collapse the pocket something that is REQUIRED when you are running the wide-9 habitually.

If you don't have a mobile QB, you don't run a read-option system, why would you run this defense without the most vital position? Leave it to the egomatic Jim Washsburn to try and make it work, regardless. But not only try to make it work but refuse to have your players do anything other than rush the passer despite clear flaws. So yes, coaching does deserve a fair share of the blame.

But again, this scheme is run by 1, O-N-E other team in the NFL. Is there something the Lions know that the rest of the NFL doesn't? Tennessee ran it successfully, but you could have run any defense around Albert Haynesworth and it would've been successful for those couple years, the guy was the definition of unstoppable. Funny, that when he left, shortly after Washburn was out the door as well. That should tell you something. So can the Wide-9 be successful? Yes, if you have elite talent at its most crucial positions (DT, MLB). But even as we see with the Lions there are still so many holes to be exploited (they lack talent at CB and DE).

Even if you add an extra d-line man and run the scheme with a 5 man d-line you are still going to get hurt one way or another. Like I've pointed out in this thread, it doesn't change the fact that everyone on the back end has to make up for the stubborn mentality of the defensive line. When your LBs and Safeties have to be your primary run defenders you're bound to get burned in other ways.

2 things:

1. You do know that Tennessee used the wide 9 successfully before Haynesworth got there, right?

2. This still goes back to a coaching issue and there is literally no way you can blame the system. The coaches control the system. The formation does work - not universally, but in enough situations to make it viable as a base defense dependant on your philosophy. You are not, in any way, required to prefer or even like the formation.

To me, Washburn and the wide-9 are synonymous.
His is the wide-9 that we ran here.

Yes, Washburn was a problem.
But he employed a system that was AS stubborn and inflexible as he was.

Therefore yes, it's a coaching and scheme issue. The Washburn-9 did not allow for chemistry.

But this thread explored the schematic problems ON FIELD.
Not why the team is a disaster.

I was under the impression that we were discussing why the defense has had so many issues.

Just so you know, even with the caveat "on the field", it still comes back to coaching. Any formation or assignment can have disastrous results when called in the wrong situation or if the offense calls the right play at the right time. Basically when a team has issues like this it comes down to 2 reasons: Player effort and/or talent or coaching. Sometimes both.

Just go to the stadium and watch the wide-9 in person from one of the endzones.

You will just see the blatantly large holes in the defense.

NFL teams are spreading out in order to spread out the defense, create large spaces, and take advantages of mismatches.

The Wide-9 does that for offenses and exposes the defense. I was at the game in Washington and watched it from one of the endzones. The Redskins had runs up the middle and to the edge all day. Why?

Because the wide-9 gave the Redskins the middle and since our defensive ends in the wide-9 just crash and crash hard, they had the edge. And that just put too much on our safeties and corners. That is why they kept beating us deep in the passing game.

Why do you think we keep having busted coverages? It's because this secondary is being asked to do way too much.

Like my coaches always said in high school, 95% of football is getting to the right spots and getting lined up correctly. The wide-9 essentially has the defensive line lining up incorrectly all the time.

In which case it is the responsibility of the coaches to adjust. No formation can prevent a coach from making adjustments. It's literally impossible.

Just go to the stadium and watch the wide-9 in person from one of the endzones.

You will just see the blatantly large holes in the defense.

NFL teams are spreading out in order to spread out the defense, create large spaces, and take advantages of mismatches.

The Wide-9 does that for offenses and exposes the defense. I was at the game in Washington and watched it from one of the endzones. The Redskins had runs up the middle and to the edge all day. Why?

Because the wide-9 gave the Redskins the middle and since our defensive ends in the wide-9 just crash and crash hard, they had the edge. And that just put too much on our safeties and corners. That is why they kept beating us deep in the passing game.

Why do you think we keep having busted coverages? It's because this secondary is being asked to do way too much.

Like my coaches always said in high school, 95% of football is getting to the right spots and getting lined up correctly. The wide-9 essentially has the defensive line lining up incorrectly all the time.

In which case it is the responsibility of the coaches to adjust. No formation can prevent a coach from making adjustments. It's literally impossible.

In this case, the adjustment is to get rid of the wide-9.

I don't think looking at previous cases where the wide-9 worked is proof of something working in today's game.

There is too much speed. Guys are faster than ever and stronger than ever. I could say that many teams ran the Single Wing and it worked very well for them more than half a century ago. But that doesn't mean it would work in today's game.

Teams learn and adapt. As of right now, it seems that NFL offenses have figured out how to beat the wide-9._________________

The only part I guess I am failing to grasp is how you could possibly think what you just wrote and in the next breath say the wide nine is to blame. I honestly can't imagine what would make you insist that it was the formation itsself. Do you think that it was used too much? Did the team continue to use it even after opponents began to key on its weaknesses? How could either of those possibly be anything but coaching issues?

The formation cannot force the coaches to adjust or not. It's the coaches descision. It cannot force the coaches to practice a certain way. It's the coaches descision. If you believe that [some] coaches were devoted to it to the point of blindness, that's still a coaching issue. There is no possible way that anything pertaining to the way the Eagles used the wide 9 comes back to anything but the coaches decisions. Ergo, making it a coaching issue no matter how you slice it.

So I guess the Lions don't have the right coaching then either.

Before the Wide-9 was even implemented we didn't have close to the personnel ready on defense, our LBs were soft and didn't play downhill, we were weak up front at the DT position and we had/still have safeties that can't tackle. Everyone in the off-season proclaimed if we upgraded our LBs we would be fine. I didn't buy it. Surely, enough this year we are getting run on just as bad if not worse and we have now ridden ourselves of this scheme.

Despite drafting "his guy" Fletcher Cox, Jim Washburn couldn't find a force in the middle to consistently collapse the pocket something that is REQUIRED when you are running the wide-9 habitually.

If you don't have a mobile QB, you don't run a read-option system, why would you run this defense without the most vital position? Leave it to the egomatic Jim Washsburn to try and make it work, regardless. But not only try to make it work but refuse to have your players do anything other than rush the passer despite clear flaws. So yes, coaching does deserve a fair share of the blame.

But again, this scheme is run by 1, O-N-E other team in the NFL. Is there something the Lions know that the rest of the NFL doesn't? Tennessee ran it successfully, but you could have run any defense around Albert Haynesworth and it would've been successful for those couple years, the guy was the definition of unstoppable. Funny, that when he left, shortly after Washburn was out the door as well. That should tell you something. So can the Wide-9 be successful? Yes, if you have elite talent at its most crucial positions (DT, MLB). But even as we see with the Lions there are still so many holes to be exploited (they lack talent at CB and DE).

Even if you add an extra d-line man and run the scheme with a 5 man d-line you are still going to get hurt one way or another. Like I've pointed out in this thread, it doesn't change the fact that everyone on the back end has to make up for the stubborn mentality of the defensive line. When your LBs and Safeties have to be your primary run defenders you're bound to get burned in other ways.

2 things:

1. You do know that Tennessee used the wide 9 successfully before Haynesworth got there, right?

2. This still goes back to a coaching issue and there is literally no way you can blame the system. The coaches control the system. The formation does work - not universally, but in enough situations to make it viable as a base defense dependant on your philosophy. You are not, in any way, required to prefer or even like the formation.

You do realize Haynesworth was with the team since 2002, right? Washburn was there since 1999. They had success in 2000 with Greg Williams as the DC and Jevon Kearse in his prime, that was about it. After that and before Haynesworth hit his prime they had a putrid defense for several years in a row. Coincidentally once he hit his stride the defense improved considerably, once he left they fell back down to Earth.

How is there no way I can blame the system? The system inherently has a ton of flaws that makes other players have to do far more than they should. It isn't a viable base defense because there is no emphasis on stopping the run which is vital in the NFL. History shows that it doesn't work with any sort of consistency. The mark of a good defensive scheme is that you can get the most out of players that don't have elite talent. I look at the D1ck Lebeau defenses, Jim Johnson's ds over the year you see turnover and a mixture of talent but still very consistent defenses for the most part. If you don't have elite talent in the wide-9 at its core you are done.

Just go to the stadium and watch the wide-9 in person from one of the endzones.

You will just see the blatantly large holes in the defense.

NFL teams are spreading out in order to spread out the defense, create large spaces, and take advantages of mismatches.

The Wide-9 does that for offenses and exposes the defense. I was at the game in Washington and watched it from one of the endzones. The Redskins had runs up the middle and to the edge all day. Why?

Because the wide-9 gave the Redskins the middle and since our defensive ends in the wide-9 just crash and crash hard, they had the edge. And that just put too much on our safeties and corners. That is why they kept beating us deep in the passing game.

Why do you think we keep having busted coverages? It's because this secondary is being asked to do way too much.

Like my coaches always said in high school, 95% of football is getting to the right spots and getting lined up correctly. The wide-9 essentially has the defensive line lining up incorrectly all the time.

In which case it is the responsibility of the coaches to adjust. No formation can prevent a coach from making adjustments. It's literally impossible.

In this case, the adjustment is to get rid of the wide-9.

I don't think looking at previous cases where the wide-9 worked is proof of something working in today's game.

There is too much speed. Guys are faster than ever and stronger than ever. I could say that many teams ran the Single Wing and it worked very well for them more than half a century ago. But that doesn't mean it would work in today's game.

Teams learn and adapt. As of right now, it seems that NFL offenses have figured out how to beat the wide-9.

I'm not sure what your point is? I'm also not sure what point of view you think I'm arguing?

Teams have figured out how to beat the cover 2, the zone blitz, and numerous other defensive formations and philosophies that are still commonly used today.

At any point during the game, were our ends asked to do anything different?
At any point during the game, did they do anything other than rush the passer with reckless abandon?

Even when these problems are visibly evident, were our ends ever able to adjust to fix those wrongs?

Would you say any real defensive adjustments were being made?
Do you think it's because our coaches are fools, or because the system up front has one goal, and one method, from first snap to last snap regardless of situation or the opposing gameplan?_________________

At any point during the game, were our ends asked to do anything different?
At any point during the game, did they do anything other than rush the passer with reckless abandon?

Even when these problems are visibly evident, were our ends ever able to adjust to fix those wrongs?

Would you say any real defensive adjustments were being made?
Do you think it's because our coaches are fools, or because the system up front has one goal, and one method, from first snap to last snap regardless of situation or the opposing gameplan?

Honestly, I can't remember a time when our ends weren't just rushing the passer with reckless abandon. It was always just pin their ears back and run towards where the quarterback would be if it was a regular dropback.

The part in bold is key. They didn't do anything resembling reading what was going on. The Redskins saw this and ran a bunch of stuff to the edge whether it was a running back off-tackle run or RGIII keeping it and running around the end.

I can say with complete certainty that nothing was done to fix this during the season. If there was, we would have seen it. Instead we have been seeing the same thing from our defensive ends game after game after game. Just a straight out get to the QB. They get there with such reckless abandon and they are moving so fast that 9/10 times when they get to the QB, they run right past him or completely flail and miss. I've never seen more missed tackles from a defensive line.

I can't say for certain whether any adjustments were made by the coaches. But honestly what adjustment can be made? This system is so crippling. Just by looking at the way the players are lined up, you can tell that the defense absolutely must sacrifice something.

- long run up the middle
- long run past the crashing defensive end
- deep pass because the safeties are being forced to fill gaps formed by the nature of the defense

Are we really supposed to believe that our coaches don't know how to stop deep passes over and over and over? That they don't know what plays to call to prevent those plays?

It is the scheme that is handcuffing our defense. Now that the wide 9 is no longer in play, we won't see ends only trying to boost their sack statistic. We won't see the A gaps being uncovered. We won't see the safeties and corners constantly peeking into the backfield as much.

Literally everything that has been plaguing this defense can be attributed to the wide-9._________________

THE WIDE-9 : the particular scheme employed by Jim Washburn in Philadelphia

And this is indeed the primary issue. You continue to blame the formation for a coach's unwillingness to adjust out of it when necessary. That difference you are trying to convey? It's not the formation, it's the coach. You just said it yourself right here in this post.

THE WIDE-9 : the particular scheme employed by Jim Washburn in Philadelphia

And this is indeed the primary issue. You continue to blame the formation for a coach's unwillingness to adjust out of it when necessary. That difference you are trying to convey? It's not the formation, it's the coach. You just said it yourself right here in this post.

And I never said coaching wasn't a problem. That was one of my main points.
The emphasis on the problem that arose due to the implementation of such wide-9 has resulted in the other peculiar problems associated with our defense.

If Washburn coached something else... let's say the skinny-3 (making this up here). I'd have a different set of problems attributed to it._________________

That's just it.
There is a huge coaching problem.
But there is also a wide-9 problem.

No, not a problem where a simple scheme or technique prevents anything.
It's a problem with the Jim Washburn wide-9 and the way it incorporated itself into our defense.

The Jim Washburn wide-9 was infused with the flaws of Washburn's personality. Is that coaching? Sure!

But the wide-9 also had problems.
If Jim Washburn were coaching a different system, it would still have the Washburn problem, but it wouldn't have problems specific to the wide-9.

It would be whatever else he was teaching being forced down everyone's throat.

The wide-9 asks our ends to do the same thing, for the whole game. And nothing else.

Even when it means teams are attacking the aggressive front.
Yes, a huge coaching problem exists. But it's not because our coordinators are fools, or simply don't want to adjust.

It's because they cannot. They can't ask their ends to do anything different because the wide-9 has specific goals, and therefore specific demands for the entirety of the game.

As I said before, you cannot respond to a team utilizing a heavy run attack to where our ends are supposed to be by asking Jason Babin to play more at the line to prevent it.

You cannot ask Jason Babin to play outside contain because the opposing QB is a runner.

You cannot ask it because it isn't his duty. It never is his responsibility. And that's the limitations of the Jim Washburn wide-9 that we've employed.

Basically, it says
"Well, we're rushing the passer. We don't care what happens after that, that's the rest of the defense's problem."

And it's incredibly stupid.

i actually agree with nearly all of this post. Except the part where you say the wide 9 demands something the entire game. The wide 9 demands nothing over a period longer than 1 play. Based on the information we have available, it's Jim Washburn that demands the wide 9 for the entire game. No matter how synonymous your personal feelings consider the two, it's not the same thing.

THE WIDE-9 : the particular scheme employed by Jim Washburn in Philadelphia

And this is indeed the primary issue. You continue to blame the formation for a coach's unwillingness to adjust out of it when necessary. That difference you are trying to convey? It's not the formation, it's the coach. You just said it yourself right here in this post.

And I never said coaching wasn't a problem. That was one of my main points.
The emphasis on the problem that arose due to the implementation of such wide-9 has resulted in the other peculiar problems associated with our defense.

If Washburn coached something else... let's say the skinny-3 (making this up here). I'd have a different set of problems attributed to it.

Indeed, but look at what you're typing. Problems would be there regardless of the formation. They would simply be tailored to whatever the particular weakness of that formation was. Why? Because Jim Washburn is an inflexible [inappropriate/removed] who insists on only doing things one way. That is a pure coaching issue. Pure 100% coaching.